Dutch bloggers due in court over filming under skirts

[stiltman]

http://news.com.com/Dutch+bloggers+due+in+court+over+filming+under+skirts/2110-1030_3-...l?tag=nefd.hed

Two Dutch news bloggers caught filming under women's skirts in a car park in order to warn the public of the intimate views afforded by see-through stairs must appear in court, according to their blog. A court spokesman in Alkmaar, where the pair have been called to appear in October, said they had been charged with filming people without permission after someone complained. The bloggers say the women knew that they were being filmed.

The subterranean car park in the northern Dutch town of Heerhugowaard has a transparent ceiling in its stairwell, allowing people to look up at shoppers passing above. The Geen Stijl blog said they were only filming to see whether the local council had done anything about the transparent ceiling after the issue was brought to their attention several months before. The two bloggers could face a two-month prison sentence, according to Dutch news agency ANP.

BTW, Useless without picts

[Supreme2k]

I don't get the charges. I guess "filming people without permission" is illegal in Heerhugowaard, but I don't see how. I thought that you pretty much give up privacy when you go out in public, unless there is a reasonable assumption that you want privacy (bathroom, changing stall, etc). It seems as though the exact opposite is true, that they were trying to show the lack of privacy that was afforded by the stairs.

Those guys aren't criminals. They're heroes! Those women should be on their knees thanking those gentlemen for looking out for them.

[gll99]

Don't feel sorry for these jerks. Way too many creeps looking for loopholes!!!!!!

If they can prove that the people they filmed were all "actors" then it should be cleared up quickly in court. If it's not true then they get what they deserve. Doing something illegal to prove a point is not a defence. 10 to 1 if they hadn't been caught that junk would end up posted somewhere. Throw the book at them!

Well they got the message out so they can't complain if that really was their intention.

[Supreme2k]

The second part of my post was tongue-in-cheek, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Could someone be charged with voyeurism or invasion of privacy if they were under those stairs/ceiling and simply looked up as a woman wearing a dress passed by?

If the women want to press charges against anyone, it should be the people who own the car park.

[gll99]

Could someone be charged with voyeurism or invasion of privacy if they were under those stairs/ceiling and simply looked up as a woman wearing a dress passed by?

I know where you're coming from Supreme but....

This is what the bleeding hearts want us to do. Stretch the facts. What if this happens or what if it's that etc... It leads a reasonable person to think what if someone was just walking under there and happened to look up and get charged well that's not right.... but wait a minute that's pure lawyer speak, trying to confuse the issue. Following that kind of logic no law would ever get enacted or enforced because we can all find exceptional circumstances where an action might be excusable or acceptable in our eyes. Like speeding in a life and death emergency.

They were not charged with looking. The act of filming is apparently the law on their books.
The law is there and they were charged. Good for the police and the crown attorney who proceeded with the charges!

This isn't about freedom of expression, freedom of the press, artistic freedom or any other reason some lawyer might try to use. If there are extenuating circumstances such as actors willingly participating in a film production then establish this as a fact at trial. Although the investigation would have no doubt already revealed that information and charges not been laid regardless of their claims.

In cases like these, I find guilty until proven innocent. This is opposite to the Judicial position but from the Police and Crown Attorney's office standpoint when they have sufficient evidence to charge someone then based on that evidence they obviously think them to be guilty. Obviously, the process still has to play out to completion. Remember, by stiffening and stretching out ones fingers with a tight driving glove, one can always make it appear that the glove doesn't fit.

I have no sympathy for them but won't lose any sleep over it.

[offline]

Sounds like a risky sport if you lived in Scotland.

[thecoalman]

Those guys aren't criminals. They're heroes!.

Agree if they had permission.. If not they are scum.

[Midzuki]

Anyway, the saddening truth is, stupid people raise stupid children
who will become stupid citizens who will elect scoundrelly legislators
who will produce stupid and narrow-minded laws. Just my US$1.99
for this day.

=====